Development of a Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure ( PROM ) in Bony Facial Trauma Patients

ABSTRACT Objectives There are currently no validated patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) to specifically evaluate quality‐of‐life outcomes for patients who have suffered bony facial trauma. Our goals are the following: (1) Investigate functional and psychosocial concerns that are self‐identified as important among patients following bony facial trauma. (2) Formalize these factors into an appropriate patient‐reported outcome measurement tool that can be utilized clinically. Methods We performed semi‐structured interviews with 10 providers at the University of Virginia and other academic institutions who are experts in the field of facial trauma. Providers were asked about functional and psychosocial concerns that patients with bony facial trauma may experience. Responses were then used to create a preliminary PROM instrument, which was programmed for self‐administration through the Qualtrics online survey platform. Subsequent semi‐structured interviews with 15 patients affected by bony facial trauma were conducted during the cognitive debriefing portion. Patients completed the questionnaire and their responses provided focus to the finalized PROM survey. Results The final PROM instrument included functional concerns such as nasal obstruction, persistent facial numbness, vision issues, and limited jaw mobility. Psychosocial concerns included difficulty completing personal tasks, feeling depressed or anxious, and not wanting to spend time with family or friends. Conclusion Using a standardized approach, we developed a patient‐reported outcome measure specific to bony facial trauma patients by performing semi‐structured interviews with content experts as well as cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. The final PROM included functional and psychosocial concerns relevant to the bony facial trauma population, such as vision issues and difficulty completing personal tasks. Future directions of the study will include a multi‐institution validation phase with a larger volume of patients. Level of Evidence 4.